Wednesday, 2 May 2012

Urban Decay Naked 2 Palette

For years I have shied away from eyeshadows. I never knew what shades would look best on my pale, cool skin and with my cool blue eyes, and beyond that I just never knew how to apply it to make it look good. And that’s before we start thinking about the crease and outer V!

I surprised even myself, then, when I jumped in with both impulsive feet and splurged on Urban Decay’s Naked 2 palette, but I can’t say I’ve looked back.

It veers cooler than the original Naked palette which suits my skin tone perfectly, although there are some warmer shades in there. These tend to be the shades I ignore, though I can’t say there isn’t a shade I don’t use at all. Overall it’s a good selection of neutral shades, all of which can be mixed and matched. I think the palette is organised very well, showing obvious combinations of shades (Suspect and Snakebite sit together, for example, which just so happens to be my favourite combination in this palette), but there is absolutely no reason to stick to these subtle hints. Perhaps most importantly, the shadows have very good pigmentation and last most of the day without creasing (even without a primer); there’s very little fallout too, although there are a couple of shades, usually the really shimmery ones like YDK, that are the exception.

I wasn’t overly impressed with the brush that came with it at first, but it has grown on me. It’s really handy if you’re travelling as it sits tightly in the palette itself. The packaging is wonderful, and the large mirror inside is excellent, once again really good if you’re off travelling. Oddly, it comes with a mini lipgloss – the primer supplied with the original Naked made more sense – but it’s okay.

The Naked 2 palette retails for £36 which seems steep, but you get a good collection of shades here, most of which I use regularly. I think it’s definitely worth the money, and if I hit pan on all the shades I would go out and repurchase in an instant.

What do you think of the Naked 2? Better or worse than its predecessor?